The Colorado River is pictured near Moab on Sunday, Feb. 18, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)
Western states that rely on the Colorado River are in a heated standoff over management of the troubled river and are doubling down on their own regional plans despite mounting pressure from the federal government to reach a compromise.
Top water officials from the seven Colorado River Basin states – Arizona, California, Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming – gathered Thursday for the Colorado River Water Users Association conference at the Paris Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas.
But for the first time in years, representatives from the Lower Basin states – Nevada, Arizona and California – and the Upper Basin states – Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming – did not appear on a panel together or meet during the conference to negotiate. the future of the Colorado River.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES IN YOUR INBOX
“It’s common for us to meet beforehand,” Becky Mitchell, Colorado River Commissioner for Colorado, said at a news conference. “Unfortunately we couldn’t do that. I don’t think that means we’ll never be able to do that again. It just means we weren’t there this time.”
Nine months ago, the two river basins submitted competing water management plans to the federal government after state negotiators could not reach a consensus on how to divide the river’s dwindling water supply.
Since then, basin states have made no progress in negotiating a compromise on how to fairly distribute and reduce Colorado River water use once current management rules expire in 2026, leaving states without a paddle.
One of the biggest sticking points between the two basins is whether or not Upper Basin states should accommodate mandated water cuts during dry years, despite the fact that year after year they are receiving significantly less than their 7.5 million acres of Colorado Use River Mapping.
Historically, the Lower Basin states have used nearly all of their 7.5 million acre-feet of Colorado River allocation under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, compared to the 4.5 million acre-feet used by the Upper Basin states .
The Lower Basin states argued that all seven states would have to share water savings during dry years under the new post-2026 guidelines. If they don’t, the downstream states warned they could face water shortages that they cannot feasibly accommodate.
These tensions were on display Thursday when Lower Basin water managers told a ballroom full of water managers, researchers, agricultural producers and others from across the drought-stricken river that if their counterparts in the Upper Basin did not sign the Lower Basin plan and would accept cuts, they would be at greater risk of triggering a “compact call,” which could force cuts in the Upper Basin.
The Upper Basin states argue that they do not have the legal authority to significantly reduce flows to water users on their own under the 1922 Colorado River Compact, unlike the Lower Basin states.
“Maybe they have that authority if we make a compact phone call. So maybe we make that compact call, then they have the authority to reduce the flows,” said Tom Buschatzke, Arizona’s top Colorado River negotiator. “Maybe that’s an easy path compared to going to their water users with a voluntary program or their legislature to get authorities to do the things we need to do in the Lower Basin.”
In September, Buschatzke asked Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs to set aside $1 million for lawsuits in case states fail to reach a compromise and Arizona has to take the issue to court.
“I have to do my due diligence on all possible outcomes,” Buchatzke said of his request.
Negotiators in both the Lower and Upper Basin states all acknowledged that they have three options for deciding how states will share the river’s dwindling water supply in the future: lawsuits, legislation or negotiations.
“When we put forward our Lower Basin alternative, we wanted to offer a compromise,” said JB Hamby, Colorado River Commissioner for California. “We want a seven-state treaty. We don’t want to go into litigation and force these really difficult outcomes in the Upper Basin.”
Mitchell, the Colorado River Commissioner for Colorado, was critical of the way the Lower Basin states have approached negotiations with the Upper Basin.
“I think going in and not being willing to change your deal at all is probably the first problem. You can’t say there is a compromise if we have to accept a deal in its entirety,” Mitchell said, adding that the Upper Basin states are open to adjustments to their plan.
To reach a compromise, the federal government released an initial draft last month detailing four different river management options, including a hybrid management option that combines components from both river basin plans.
Representatives from both camps said they needed to see more details before lending their support to either of the federal management proposals.
“They provided some additional information today on some elements, but still not enough,” Estevan Lopez, New Mexico’s representative for Colorado River affairs, said at a news conference Thursday.
Representatives from the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation said the agency plans to release a more detailed analysis of the federal proposals by the end of the year. The maximum cuts could range from 2.1 million acre-feet to 4 million acre-feet, which could be distributed based on who has the oldest rights, or distributed proportionately among all seven states.
Despite the lack of camaraderie between the Lower and Upper Basin states at the annual conference, both camps expressed optimism that they could eventually reach a compromise.
“I want everyone from the upper Nevada Basin to hear: We believe compromise is possible. We think this is the first, second and third best option. But we need a dancing partner, so let’s get back to the table and make this happen,” said John Entsminger, Nevada’s representative for river issues and general manager of the Southern Nevada Water Authority.
Mitchell said it was clear to her from panel presentations at the conference that all seven states want to come to a consensus plan on how to manage the future of the Colorado River.
“I think there is still a possibility. I’m still hopeful. And I think if we want a seven-state consensus, we need to have seven leaders at the table,” Mitchell continued.
Brandon Gebhart, Wyoming’s state engineer and Colorado River negotiator, said he believes the seven Colorado River Basin states can come up with a better management plan than one mandated by the federal government, although “that won’t happen next week .”
“We really need to understand that the enemy we’re fighting now is not the Upper Basin, it’s not the Lower Basin either. It’s hydrology,” Gebhart said.
Nevada Stream is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nevada Current maintains editorial independence. If you have any questions, please contact editor Hugh Jackson: info@nevadacurrent.com. Follow Nevada Current on Facebook and X.
